Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr VS Union of India & Ors 2004 (Case Summary)

The case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India addressed whether the BCCI qualifies as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, impacting judicial review of its actions and fundamental rights enforcement.

Table of Contents

Facts of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India

The BCCI, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, initiated a tender process to award exclusive broadcast rights for four years.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. and ESPN Star Sports (ESS) participated in this tender process.
Following negotiations, the BCCI decided to accept Zee Telefilms’ offer, and Zee Telefilms deposited a significant sum as per the agreement.
ESS filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the BCCI’s decision.
During the proceedings in the Bombay High Court, the BCCI stated its intent to cancel the entire tender process, citing the lack of a formally issued letter of intent.
However, the BCCI terminated its contract with Zee Telefilms.
Zee Telefilms, subsequently, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging the BCCI’s action of terminating the contract. They argued that the termination was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues framed

Whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, hence it is maintainable or not?
Whether the action of the BCCI amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on interpreting Article 12 of the Constitution, which defines “State” to include various entities such as the government and its instrumentalities.

The Court applied the principles from Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) to determine whether the BCCI qualifies as a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. It noted that the BCCI was not created by a statute but registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Hence, it was a non-statutory body. The Board does not receive financial assistance from the government, nor does the government hold any share capital in it, making the BCCI an autonomous, self-funded organization. While the BCCI enjoys a monopoly in Indian cricket, this monopoly is not conferred or protected by the State but arises from recognition by the International Cricket Council (ICC).

The Court found that there is no deep or pervasive government control over the BCCI; the regulatory oversight by the government is limited and applies to other private bodies as well, which does not amount to state control. The court relied on Pradeep Kumar Biswas to explain that only “pervasive control,” which means that the government’s control is “spread throughout” and affects all aspects of the organization’s functioning, is sufficient to make a private body a ‘State’. Thus, the regulatory oversight by the government is not sufficient ground to conclude BCCI as a State.

The court, while acknowledging the fact that the BCCI performs public functions like organizing international matches and selecting the national team, these are not governmental functions, and public functions alone do not make an entity a ‘State.’ Furthermore, the BCCI was not created through the transfer of any government corporation, reinforcing its independent nature.

The Supreme Court concluded that the BCCI is neither financially, functionally, nor administratively controlled by the government. The limited regulatory control exercised by the government is insufficient to classify the BCCI as a ‘State’ under Article 12. Since the BCCI does not fall under Article 12, there arises no question of violating Article 14. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable.